A fateful choice for Venezuela and Norway

This is a chronicle. Opinions in the text are the writer’s own.

It is not easy to be optimistic about democracy in Venezuela. Over the past 25 years, the country has gradually become an autocratic, unfree country.

It began with the concentration of power in the hands of the president, restrictions on freedom of expression, jailing of the opposition and the use of the nation’s oil revenues to buy votes under President Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution, which gave rise to the term “Chavism”.

After Chávez’s death in 2013, the country quickly went downhill: Opposition members were imprisoned or sent into exile. Political parties, and even the Venezuelan Communist Party, have been intervened or banned. Press censorship and harassment of activists is widespread. Social benefits are linked to votes. And extensive use of torture and extrajudicial executions has been documented.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently confirmed that the investigation against Nicolás Maduro for crimes against humanity is continuing.

Nor does recent electoral history give much reason for optimism. After the opposition won a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly in 2015, it was gradually sidelined by the Maduro-controlled Supreme Court Tribunal, before a Constituent Assembly was established by Maduro in 2017 to override the National Assembly.

The presidential election in 2018 was manipulated to such an extent that 60 countries refused to approve it.

The fact that things went this way in Venezuela cannot be exclusively linked to the legacy of Chávez. The radicalization of the regime is often linked to the opposition’s coup attempt in 2002.

Former opposition leader Leopoldo López was behind a failed attempt to mobilize the military for a coup in 2019, and in 2020 a bizarre invasion attempt by a group of mercenaries was stopped.

Parts of the opposition have repeatedly boycotted the elections due to irregularities, thereby strengthening the power of the Chavistas.

Maria Corina, as she is most often referred to, has rejected any kind of collaboration with Maduro, and now she stands for what the people want: change.

The hope for change

There is a certain danger of a boycott this time too, but something has changed.

One opposition candidate – Maria Corina Machado – has won the support of the entire spectrum of the population. No one would have thought that just a few years ago.

She is a representative of the old elite in Venezuela and stands a long way to the right. Nevertheless, she is embraced by all walks of life, and by large parts of the otherwise notoriously divided opposition.

The latter was confirmed in the informal internal election that was organized in October, where she received 92 percent of the vote. Her popularity is partly due to the fact that Maduro has never been as unpopular as he is now. Maria Corina, as she is most often referred to, has rejected any kind of collaboration with Maduro, and now she stands for what the people want: change.

Despite being banned from politics since 2014, she has traveled far and wide and created a movement from below.

The attempts to curtail her political rights prevent her from flying, so she travels by bus and car, collecting tens of thousands in all corners of the country. Everyone who collaborates with her is at risk of being harassed, and several of her colleagues have been imprisoned.

But she continues to spread the message of change, and that she will help reunite Venezuelan families. Almost 8 million Venezuelans have had to flee under Chavismo – for economic or political reasons.

Maria Corina has become the image for Venezuelan parents to hug their children again, and finally see their grandchildren. It means far more than right-left ideology and identity politics.

Maria Corina’s party not mentioned

After talks over four years, Norwegian facilitators, together with Jorge Rodríguez from the Maduro side and Gerardo Blyde from the opposition’s Unity Platform, were finally able to present an agreement on a democratic road map towards a presidential election in 2024.

It was not without irony: Maria Corina’s party is not part of the Unity Platform and has long rejected dialogue. But the Barbados Agreement committed the government to allow all political candidates (who comply with Venezuela’s laws), to ensure a good democratic climate, equal access to national media and to ensure that the millions of Venezuelans abroad will also be allowed to register and vote at the election.

The next day, the United States gave its support to the agreement and a promise of six months of sanctions relief on the condition that a concrete plan was put in place to allow all candidates. Soon after, it became known that parallel negotiations had taken place in Qatar between the US and the Maduro government, which had opened the way for sanctions relief and prisoner exchanges.

The Maduro government’s goal is to conduct an election that is just open enough to be recognized internationally, but not so open that the opposition can win.

A complicated international game

For both the opposition and the Maduro government, an enormous amount is at stake. The Maduro government’s goal is to conduct an election that is just open enough to be recognized internationally, but not so open that the opposition can win.

It will give him a legitimacy that can both secure sanctions relief and new cooperation with the UN, with the hope of scrapping the ICC investigation. It should happen well before the presidential election in the United States. Biden’s Venezuela strategy has diverged from Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ strategy. It consisted of sanctions which, among other things, prohibited the import of Venezuelan oil, and the threat of intervention, without any clear negotiating agenda.

Biden has supported negotiations, and tried to use sanctions relief strategically, as a means of pressure. But he has also had new challenges.

Venezuelan migrants who previously went primarily to neighboring countries are now spilling over the border into the United States. With an eye on the US’s own election in October, Biden has introduced austerity measures, and is dependent on cooperation with Maduro to, among other things, deport Venezuelans.

At the same time, the sanctions against Russia and high petrol prices have increased the pressure to secure access to oil from Venezuela, which can be quickly sold at US petrol stations.

Parts of the opposition have wanted pressure to be put on Maduro through sanctions, because it is seen as the only way to get concessions. The dilemma is that the vast majority of Venezuelans oppose sanctions, which have demonstrably worsened an already critical economic situation.

Pushing for sanctions is therefore no election winner.

Maduro’s response

The Maduro regime’s response to this complicated game was first to get the Supreme Court Tribunal in January to confirm Maria Corina’s ban.

When the deadline for registering candidates approached, Enhetsplatformen and Maria Corina agreed to instead register an 80-year-old unknown, but recognized, language professor, Corina Yoris.

When barriers were placed in the system for her as well, she was replaced with yet another unknown candidate, the former diplomat Edmundo González.

Afterwards, the entire opposition managed to gather around this rather nondescript magazine, and other candidates withdrew. All this happened while the repression of political activists was turned up several notches, including the arrest of Venezuela’s best-known human rights lawyer, Rocío San Miguel.

In response, several European and American countries – including the United States – have made critical statements about Maduro’s violation of the Barbados Agreement. Leftist allies in Latin America, including important neighbors Colombia and Brazil, have also been critical.

The US has also reimposed sanctions, but in a way that keeps the door open for improvements until May 30. Maduro’s chief strategist, Jorge Rodríguez, has responded by accusing the United States of having broken the Qatar agreement, and rages against Norway as America’s lackey.

Norway’s risky silence

In the midst of all this, there has been silence from Norway – at least in public. There may be good reasons for that. Norway has no means of pressure to use against Maduro. The only thing we have had to offer is an established dialogue format and contact with both parties.

The opposition has always wanted a Norwegian presence, and too strong an outcome against the regime could contribute to worsening the working conditions for the Norwegian shuttle diplomacy.

But Norwegian silence is also risky. The Maduro regime has repeatedly violated human rights, democratic principles and international law.

Norway’s legitimacy as a facilitator is based on respect for an international democratic legal order. Those principles cannot be thrown under the bus for the sake of a further facilitating role.

In Venezuela, there is still some room for elections with a minimum of political competition. Although the regime prevents Venezuelans abroad from registering, and uses the depleted treasury to buy votes, Maria Corina has so far been allowed to campaign with posters of the deputy, and the opposition has managed to stand together.

Before July 28, we must put everything into making sure that room does not close. Then Norway must get more involved politically. A quick visit by a state secretary is not enough. A democratic election in Venezuela will not only create hope for the future of Venezuelans; it has geopolitical implications. It is about democracy’s ability to survive in an increasingly authoritarian world, and about our role in it.